Is DMD 0.166 RC 1.0?

[Stewart Gordon]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
<snip>
>> Something I've been wondering: "but nothing about calling it 1.0 will 
>> prevent that from happening." But then what is the point of calling a 
>> 1.0 , will there be a branch or some other effect? Or it's just 
>> marketing?
> 
> It's simply a stake in the ground. I want to get past the "it's not 
> usable because it's not 1.0" first impressions people sometimes write.

Then make some effort to debunk these impressions.  Don't try to work 
around them.

Moreover, just think about what will happen when people see 1.0 and 
expect to see a well-defined language specification, and maybe even to 
be ready to write a D compiler themselves.  When they find themselves 
disappointed, just how bad will the negative image be, and how much work 
will it take to get rid of it?  Moreover, how will compiler writers, and 
software houses wanting to adopt D, know when it's OK to come back?

Yet another criterion to consider is that the language lives up to its 
claims.  One of your claims is to make it likely that multiple, correct 
implementations will be available.  This is impossible as long as the 
spec still has a number of ill-defined bits.

OTOH, how many people have you counted who have dismissed D just because 
it isn't at 1.0?  Did any of these people tell you that they would come 
back at 1.0 no matter what condition 1.0 is in?  I'd be surprised.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.